- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29023 MFA No. 6176 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6176 OF 2014 (MV-I) BETWEEN: SRI. ADARSHA T. S. S/O SRI. SHIVANANJAIAH, AGE:22 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT, R/O NO.333, 14TH 'B' CROSS, 6TH MAIN, H.S.R. LAYOUT, 6TH SECTOR, BANGALORE - 560 033. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SURESH M LATUR.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI SHIVANANJAIAH, S/O LENKAPPA, NO.333, 14TH 'B' CROSS, 6TH MAIN, H.S.R. LAYOUT, 6TH SECTOR, BANGALORE - 560 033. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, BAJAJ ALLIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO, LTD., NO.31, T.B.R.TOWER, ADJACENT TO JAIN COLLEGE, BANGALORE STOCK EXCHANGE, J.C.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 002. 3. SRI.V.M.GANESH, S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGE:MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O NO.274/6, BASAVANAPURA MAIN ROAD, BHATCHAPPA LAYOUT, Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29023 MFA No. 6176 of 2014 K.R.PURAM, BANGALORE - 560 036. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H S LINGARAJ., ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 29.11.2016, NOTICE TO R1 AND R3 ARE DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.05.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.1871/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXXIV ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT-7, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 25.07.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the claimant against the judgment and award dated 07th May 2014, passed by the IX Additional Small Causes Judge and XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member MACT-7, Bangalore, (for short "Tribunal'), in MVC No.1871/2011, seeking enhancement of compensation. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29023 MFA No. 6176 of 2014 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, on 23.06.2010, at around 02.00 p.m., the claimant was going on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-01-EL-9648 on K. R. Road. At that time, the driver of the Autorickshaw bearing registration No.KA-03-B-8241 drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle of the claimant. As a result, the claimant sustained injuries for which he took treatment as an inpatient in Apollo Hospital, Bannerghatta Main Road, Bangalore. Due to injuries sustained in the accident, he has suffered permanent disability. With these reasons, he prayed to award compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. 4. Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-01-EL-9648. It is also necessary to refer herein that - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29023 MFA No. 6176 of 2014 respondent No.1 is none other than father of the claimant. Respondent No.3 is owner of the autorickshaw bearing registration No.KA-03-B-8241. 5. Respondent No.2 denied the contents of the claim petition and denied its liability to pay the compensation. It further contended that the claim petition was not maintainable and that the accident was caused due to negligence of driver of the autorickshaw and hence, charge sheet was filed against driver of the autorickshaw. Therefore, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are not liable to pay the compensation and prayed to dismiss the claim petition against them. 6. Respondent Nos.1 and 3 remained ex parte before the Tribunal. 7. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues. 8. The claimant to prove his case examined three witnesses as PW-1 to PW-3 and marked 15 documents, as - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29023 MFA No. 6176 of 2014 per Exs.P-1 to P-15. Respondents examined one witness as RW-1 and marked documents as Exs.R-1 and R-2. 9. The Tribunal after hearing both parties and appreciating the materials available on record, dismissed the claim petition against respondent No.3 and directed respondent Nos.1 and 2 to pay the compensation, that is challenged in the present appeal. 10. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2. 11. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the claimant was rider of the motorcycle and there was collision between the motorcycle and the autorickshaw. The charge sheet is filed against driver of the autorickshaw for causing the accident in question. In a claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short "MV Act"), it is not necessary to plead and prove rash and negligent riding or driving of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29023 MFA No. 6176 of 2014 vehicle. It is sufficient to prove that both the vehicles were involved in the accident. In this case, undisputedly both autorickshaw and motorcycle were involved in the accident. Therefore, the claimant is claiming the compensation against the owner and insurer of the motorcycle, who are respondent Nos.1 and 2. The claimant can claim the compensation from the owner of any of the vehicles involved in the accident. It is not necessary to know who was charge sheeted. The Tribunal, though considered the said contention and awarded the compensation; very meagre amount of compensation has been awarded. The Tribunal has not considered the injuries sustained by the claimant, the disability assessed by the doctor and the amount spent towards medical expenses etc. Therefore, he has prayed to enhance the compensation and directed respondent No.2 to pay the same. In support of his argument, he relied on the following judgments. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29023 MFA No. 6176 of 2014 1. Chinnathamani and Others Vs. Amman Granites and Another1 2. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. P. Suresh and Others2 3. Fazaluddin and Another Vs. Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., and Others3 4. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Ins., Co., Ltd., Vs. A. Rajendra and Others4 5. Raju Bhimappa Bagewadi Vs. Dodagouda Ninganagouda Patil and Other5 6. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Urmila Halder6 7. Ram Murthi and Others Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board7 8. Jayanthi S. Shetty Vs. P. Shivaji Shetty and Another8 9. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Shivali Devi and Others9 12020 ACJ 2677 22019 ACJ 1727 32015 ACJ 1271 42019 ACJ 2852 52021 ACJ 640 62025 ACJ 244 72023 ACJ 631 82003 ACJ 809 9 2017 ACJ 862 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29023 MFA No. 6176 of 2014 10. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Vijay Vinayak Katake and Others10 The judgment dated 02.04.2025 was passed in MFA Nos.9652/2013 and 9653/2013 in the case of H. Girish and Others Vs. Pradeep Kumar Raju and Another and the MFA No.2451/2019 dated 07.03.2022 in the case of Smt. Lakshmidevi and Others Vs. Sali Mathew V and Another. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that during the pendency of this appeal, Section 163-A of the MV Act has been amended and the said section is omitted and in that place, Section 164 has been incorporated. According to the said provision, if the victim of an accident suffers grievous injuries, then he is entitled to compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-, or if any death is caused, then the legal heirs of the deceased are entitled to Rs.5,00,000/-. As per the law laid down in some of the judgments referred above, it was held that 102017 ACJ 869 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29023 MFA No. 6176 of 2014 the Section 164 of the MV Act, has retrospective effect and the same view is followed by the High Court of Delhi as well as the Coordinated Bench of this Court. Undisputedly, in this case, the claimant sustained grievous injury, i.e. fracture. Therefore, he is entitled to compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- as per Section 164 of the MV Act and prayed to enhance the said amount of compensation. 13. The main arguments of learned counsel for respondent No. 2-insurer is that the claim petition itself is not maintainable. As per the pleadings, respondent No.1 is the owner of the said motorcycle, who is father of the claimant. The claimant was riding the vehicle at the time of the accident and he steps into the shoes of owner of the vehicle and he shall be considered as a borrower of the vehicle. Therefore, the claimant as well as the recipient of compensation cannot be one and the same. Hence, he cannot maintain the claim petition against respondent Nos.1 and 2. Undisputedly, the charge sheet was filed - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29023 MFA No. 6176 of 2014 against driver of the autorickshaw as he was negligent in driving his vehicle. The Tribunal has erred in awarding the compensation. It is true that the insurer has not filed any appeal against the said judgment. But the said judgment is erroneous. 14. The learned advocate for appellant further contended that in the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 18.03.2025 in MFA No.2306/2023 (MV-D) in the case of The New India Assurance Co., Ltd., Vs. Smt. Jyothi and others, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Ramkhiladi and Another Vs. United India Insurance Company and Another11, held that the rider of the motorcycle, who had borrowed the said vehicle from its owner, while driving the vehicle, met with an accident and claimed compensation from the owner and insurer of the very same motorcycle. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering the fact of that case, held that the recipient and the claimant cannot be one and the same. 11(2020) 2 SCC 550 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29023 MFA No. 6176 of 2014 The borrower of the vehicle steps into the shoes of owner of the vehicle and hence, he cannot claim compensation against himself. On this count, the impugned award passed by the Tribunal is not tenable. When the claim petition itself is not maintainable in accordance with law, even if there is no appeal filed by the insurer, it will not affect the rights of the insurer to contest the matter on the ground of maintainability of the claim petition. The Division Bench of this Court in MFA No.2306/2023 had discussed in detail about the case of Ningamma and another Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited.,12 and held that the claim petition by the borrower of the vehicle against owner and insurer of the said motorcycle is not maintainable. Therefore, the claim petition itself is not maintainable and hence, the question of awarding the compensation under Section 164 of the MV Act does not arise. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 12 (2009) 13 SCC 710 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29023 MFA No. 6176 of 2014 15. Most of the facts are not in dispute. The claimant is none other than son of the owner of the vehicle i.e, respondentNo.1 and the claimant had taken the said vehicle to his college. While returning from the college, he met with the accident. The complaint was filed against the driver of the autorickshaw, alleging that the driver of the autorickshaw was rash and negligent in driving the said vehicle and caused the accident. The claimant sustained fractures and he filed the claim petition against both the owner and insurer of the motorcycle as well as owner of the autorickshaw. The claim petitioner prayed for compensation against respondent Nos.1 and 2. During the course of the pendency of the matter before the Tribunal, though respondentNo.3 was arrayed as a party, but no relief was claimed against the owner of the autorickshaw i.e, respondentNo.3. 16. It is settled law that if the claim petition is filed under Section 163-A of the MV Act, there is no need to plead and prove rash and negligent driving of the driver of - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29023 MFA No. 6176 of 2014 the vehicles involved in the accident. It is sufficient to prove that the said vehicles were involved in the accident. In this case, undisputedly, the motorcycle belonging to respondent No.1 and the autorickshaw belonging to respondent No.3 were involved in the accident. Respondent No.3 was charge sheeted for the incident in question. The claimant has not pleaded in the claim petition that the accident occurred due to his own negligence. On the contrary, he has stated that the driver of the autorickshaw came in a rash and negligent manner and hit his motorcycle. 17. In the case of Ramkhiladi, Ningamma and Jyothi (referred supra), the Supreme Court as well as the Division Bench of this Court held that a borrower of the vehicle, when met with an accident, cannot claim compensation against the owner and insurer of the borrowed vehicle; that is not maintainable. The borrower steps into the shoes of the owner and he cannot become a claimant as well as recipient. Therefore, as per the law laid - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29023 MFA No. 6176 of 2014 down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above two judgments, which is followed by the Division Bench of this Court, the claim petition against respondent Nos.1 and 2 are not maintainable. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal holding respondent Nos.1 and 2 liable to pay the compensation is not sustainable. It needs to be set aside. 18. The claimant has not claimed the compensation from respondent No.3. As rightly submitted by learned counsel for respondent No.2, the said vehicle was not insured. Therefore, probably the claimant thought that it might be difficult to recover the amount and thus, he has not prayed for any relief against said vehicle. Looking at the facts and circumstances of the present case, respondent No.3 is liable to pay the compensation. He was charge sheeted and the said vehicle was involved in the incident. The owner of the said vehicle was made as a party in this case but no relief was sought against respondent No.3. Since owner of offending vehicle is a party and he shall be liable to compensation. Otherwise - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29023 MFA No. 6176 of 2014 claim petition requires to be dismissed. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to receive compensation from respondent No.3. 19. During the pendency of this appeal, Section 163-A of the MV Act was amended. The said provision was omitted and in its place, Section 164 was incorporated by amending the MV Act. In the case of Urmila Halder (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the said provision has got retrospective effect. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in MFA No.9652/2013 clubbed with 9653/2013, followed it and similar view is taken by another Coordinate Bench in MFA No.105085/2023, (MV-D) in the case of Smt. Laxmi and Others Vs. Durgappa and Others, judgment dated 20.09.2024. 20. In view of the recent law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the provision of Section 164 is retrospectively - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29023 MFA No. 6176 of 2014 applicable. Therefore, the compensation has to be assessed under Section 164 of the MV Act. 21. From the evidence of PW-3, it is evident that the claimant had sustained a displaced comminuted fracture of distal radius of left side, fracture of radial styloid of right side and cut lacerated wound of upper lip. PW-3 has stated that the claimant has suffered permanent disability of 14% to the upper limbs and 5% to the whole body. The injuries mentioned in the wound certificate are grievous in nature. Therefore, as per Section 164 of the MV Act, claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-. The Central Government so far has not framed any Rules or has given guidelines while awarding the said amount of compensation. Therefore, irrespective of the severity of the injuries, if they are grievous in nature, then the victim of accident is entitled to compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- on all the heads. Accordingly, in this case also, the claimant is - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29023 MFA No. 6176 of 2014 entitled to the said amount and respondent No.3 is liable to pay the same. 22. I have gone through the other judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant. Keeping in mind the principle of law laid down in the above said judgments, orders are passed in the present case. In some of the cases, the said provision was interpreted on the basis of peculiar facts of that case. 23. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The Appeal is allowed in part. ii) The judgment and award dated 07th May 2014, passed in MVC.No.1871/2011, by the IX Additional Small Causes Judge and XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member MACT-7., Bangalore, stands modified. iii) The claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-, with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization, from respondent No.3. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29023 MFA No. 6176 of 2014 iv) Respondent No.3 shall pay the said amount with interest as stated above, within a period of six weeks. v) The claim petition against respondent Nos.1 and 2 is dismissed as not maintainable. vi) Out of compensation amount the appellant shall deposit Rs.1,00,000/- in fixed deposit for a period of two years in any of the Nationalised Banks of his choice. Remaining amount shall be released in his favour on due identification. vii) Draw award accordingly. Registry is directed to send back the records along with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AMA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2